In re White
656 S.E.2d 527 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An applicant for admission to the bar bears the burden of proving their fitness to practice law, and a lack of candor or failure to accept full responsibility for past misconduct during the character and fitness review process demonstrates a present lack of the requisite moral fitness.
Facts:
- Willie Jay White, during his second year of law school, submitted a 35-page paper that was a virtually verbatim reproduction of sections from five uncited, previously published sources.
- As a result of this plagiarism, White received a one-year academic suspension from his law school.
- In October 2005, White applied to sit for the Georgia Bar Exam and sought a certification of fitness to practice law.
- During the fitness review process, which included an informal interview with the Board to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants, White provided an explanation for the plagiarism that the Board found not to be credible.
- Despite multiple opportunities provided by the Board, White was either unwilling or unable to admit that he had deliberately plagiarized the paper.
- Throughout the application, investigation, and a subsequent formal hearing, White failed to accept full responsibility for his actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Willie Jay White submitted an application to the Board to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants for a certification of fitness to practice law.
- Following an investigation and an informal interview, the Board tentatively voted to deny White's application for certification.
- White then requested a formal hearing, and a hearing officer was appointed to review the matter.
- The hearing officer submitted a report finding that White lacked the required character and fitness and recommended a final denial of his application.
- The Board adopted the hearing officer's recommendation and issued a final denial of White's certification.
- White, the appellant, appealed the Board's final decision to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a bar applicant's failure to provide a credible explanation for past academic plagiarism and a persistent lack of candor during the fitness review process demonstrate a lack of the character and moral fitness required for admission to the bar?
Opinions:
Majority - Per curiam
Yes. A bar applicant's failure to offer a credible explanation for past misconduct and a lack of candor during the fitness review process demonstrates a lack of the required character and fitness. The court reasoned that the applicant bears the burden of proving fitness and that candor is particularly important for applicants with past mistakes. An independent review of the record confirmed the Board's findings that White intentionally plagiarized his paper and, more importantly, subsequently failed to offer a plausible explanation or accept full responsibility. This continued lack of candor and failure to be rehabilitated demonstrates that White presently lacks the integrity, character, and moral fitness required for admission to the Georgia Bar, justifying the denial of his application.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes that in character and fitness evaluations for the bar, an applicant's conduct during the review process itself is as important as the past misconduct being reviewed. It establishes that a lack of candor or a failure to accept responsibility is not merely an aggravating factor but can be an independent basis for finding a present lack of moral fitness. The case serves as a critical warning to bar applicants that honesty, accountability, and demonstrated rehabilitation are paramount. Future boards and courts will likely cite this case to support the principle that resolving doubts in favor of protecting the public requires denying applicants who are not fully transparent about their past.
Unlock the full brief for In re White